Posted on 12/04/2006 6:10:06 PM PST by goldstategop
RUSH: John in Shreveport, Louisiana. Hello.
CALLER: Mr. Rush, don't you think you're being a hypocrite when you're not -- when you don't want the Iraqis to decide the problems themselves, especially since Abraham Lincoln took two -- two generals named Lincoln [sic--Grant] and Sherman who were responsible for the deaths of 59,000 southern people? And since you hate Confederate heritage that much, don't you think that we should allow the people of Iraq to decide their own fate?
RUSH: (Laughing.) Gee. I hate Confederate heritage?
CALLER: No kidding.
RUSH: On the basis of what do you say that?
CALLER: Okay, allow me to quote you from 2001: "The American Civil War was the first conflict in human history to set a people free from the bondage of slavery." Your quote, sir.
RUSH: Yeah?
CALLER: And that's not --
RUSH: Well, the point is, we fought --
CALLER: -- power --
RUSH: Are we going to have this argument, Steve?
CALLER: Yes, sir, we are, if you've got the nerve to hold it!
RUSH: I'll have this argument with you any time you want. I've been hearing from you guys since I started this show. I know, it's about states' rights, it was about freedom; it was about independence. But it was about preserving the union -- and Abraham Lincoln knew that you couldn't preserve an America with the institutions defined by our Constitution if one man was allowed to own another.
CALLER: Well, you could not preserve the Constitution as long as you could override it by military power and invasion.
RUSH: Well, there was the preservation of the union that was the number one --
CALLER: How about the preservation of the Constitution, shouldn't that be predominant?
RUSH: Look, you still want to secede? What's your solution?
CALLER: We have no choice, we're under occupation now. The thing about it is you still have to lie about Abraham Lincoln to prove your, to make your point.
RUSH: I'm not lying about Abraham Lincoln. What do you mean, you're still under occupation?
CALLER: Put it this way. The South was not allowed to vote its own way; we're not going to allow Iraq to vote its own government, either.
RUSH: But we did.
CALLER: Do you think we're really abiding by that? What they voted for, we're trying to subvert it by military occupation. No difference than what they did here for 12 years in Louisiana. You don't think we don't see that? You don't think we don't see you as a hypocrite for what you say about, oh, yeah, preserve the union, but let's never mind, let's take away the vote from those who are the voting citizens --
RUSH: I cannot believe this!
CALLER: -- Constitution!
RUSH: I can't believe this. You are taking out your frustrations at having lost the Civil War on me and claiming I'm a hypocrite because of my stance on the Iraq war?
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: Which I don't even think you know what it is.
CALLER: I don't think you know -- I don't think you know who Abraham Lincoln was.
RUSH: I certainly know who Abraham Lincoln was. He's one of the greatest presidents in the history of the country.
CALLER: Who said that --
RUSH: And it wasn't because he defeated the south. It was because he preserved the union.
CALLER: He preserved the union by trampling the Constitution!
RUSH: He did not trample the Constitution. He suspended habeas corpus. He did do some things I wish Bush would do.
CALLER: Like kill 59,000 innocent civilians?
RUSH: Are you talking about Sherman's march through Atlanta?
CALLER: And -- and -- and Grant's shelling the city of Vicksburg. Hello?
RUSH: It won the war, didn't it? You ever heard of Gettysburg? It won the war and that was the objective. I'll tell you what I wish Bush would do that Lincoln did. Take all these anti-war agitators and send 'em to Canada. Send the National Guard in there. Send Harry Reid over to Baghdad if he's going to be so socially --
CALLER: Like that Ohio Congressman Vallandigham, huh?
RUSH: Absolutely, like that Ohio congressman, that Democrat that was snatched out of his house and sent down to Jefferson Davis, who also didn't want him.
CALLER: Well, at least I got you to acknowledge that.
RUSH: Acknowledge what?
CALLER: Well, the fact that Lincoln did have his secret police who went into people's houses, pulled them out in the middle of the night, and had them -- and had them --
RUSH: You know what? I hope before you die you learn to thank God for Abraham Lincoln.
CALLER: I hope before you die you learn what a racist and a bigot and a power-hungry maniac he was.
RUSH: I'm the racist and the bigot?
CALLER: I didn't say you were. I said he was!
RUSH: Oh. Abraham Lincoln? How in the world you can call a guy who ended slavery a racist and a bigot? I have heard everything now. Everything, in 22 years of hosting this program, I have heard everything.
How many WOMEN voted? How many non-property owners? We're not a democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic.
Blame Andrew Jackson for the Cherokees.
The acts you speak of were not "illegal".
That's why it explicitly provides for an army and a navy. No Air Force. Oh wait! You mean that the power to fund an Air Force is an implied power based on the Preamble. Just like the power for Congress to approve any change in a state's status is implied. And since the call "...to form a more perfect union" is in the Preamble as well and can therefor be used as the basis for a Constituitonal ruling. Thanks for clearing that up.
Of course not. Hypocrisy thy name is southron supporter.
We seem to be talking but having different discussions with each other.
I only address/rebut what you say when I respond to you, you seem to rebut things I've never said.
Hence the power in that same section to raise and army and establish a navy. Sorry, no Air Force. Unless you're saying that it is an implied power....
The State then appointed commissioners and paid for the land to be surveyed out of its own treasury. Work on Fort Sumter did not begin until 1829 and had still not been completed by 1860. Unfinished and unoccupied for over thirty years, the terms of the cession were clearly not fulfilled. Consequently, the fort was never the property of the United States Government, as Abraham Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address, and, upon secession from the Union, the only duty which South Carolina owed, either legally or morally, to the other States was "adequate compensation... for the value of the works and for any other advantage obtained by the one party, or loss incurred by the other."
Such being the case, the occupation of Fort Sumter by U.S. troops was technically an act of invasion and the Confederate forces in Charleston were wholly justified in firing upon them when it became evident that Lincoln intended to use military force against the State.
"No taxes were collected at either fort."
Really?!
Per http://www.mises.org/story/952 quoting from "Tariff History of the United States" Frank W. Taussig
At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using force against, or among the people anywhere" (emphasis added).
"We are going to make tax slaves out of you," Lincoln was effectively saying, "and if you resist, there will be an invasion." That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North.
There are plenty. Do your own google.
South 87 percent tariff revenue
No, it wasnt - but it was a bone of contention by Mexico in a) the Anglos settling the area under the aegis of Stephen F. Austin (althought it couldnt have been that major considering it was allowed anyway, despite Mexico's protestations) and 2) it was considered a slave state when it joined the union. A lot of people in Washington were worried about its joining because it gave one more territory over to those who had slavery as part of their economy. I think slavery only had pockets throughout most of Texas and that in the eastern portion.
Yes, they were, either way you look at it. They were neither upheld by legal courts, nor by force of arms. Deo Vindice, baby.
Blame Andrew Jackson for the Cherokees.
Blame the Carolinians who coveted their land, and profited by Jackson's refusal to enforce the law.
Article V of the Constitution says, "... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." If other states band together and vote to kick out a state, then that single action done without the consent of the kicked-out state deprives the state of representation.
Yeah, I know ... now you will argue that if all states but one withdraw and form their own new government called the New United States that that has the same effect as the one state withdrawing. Hopefully, the New United States would be as accommodating as the Confederate States and offer to negotiate fair payment for their share of common property and debts.
Why would the founders leave the question of expulsion of a a state unsaid? Is it because such an act is not forbidden? Or is it because implied in the Constitution is protection against such an act.
The Founders had no problem with clearly specifying things that required the consent of congress.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other ...
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports ...
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States ...
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate
IMO, the Founders that wanted to make withdrawal impossible without the consent of other states realized that if they put in words to that effect, the Constitution would never be ratified by large key states such as New York or Virginia. Those two key states in their ratification noted it was their understanding of the Constitution that they could resume their own governance if it was necessary for their happiness, or words to that effect.
Did the other states at the time tell New York and Virginia that they had it wrong? Surely you can point to documents that make your case.
The states had just fought the Revolutionary War to escape from an oppressive government. Why would they agree to a constitution where they could be irretrievably trapped by a cabal of oppressive states or an oppressive central government without fighting their way out to freedom?
Why would anyone be surprised that Rush is a Lincoln-olator: he supports any big government, centralized power grab so long as its proposed by someone with an (R) after their name. His criticism of big, centralized government is very selective. His approval of King Lincoln is not out of character.
they way they were "annexed" was DIShonorable.
free dixie,sw
Nope. The framers weren't Luddites ;o) The Air Force as we know it grew out of the Army. The framers expressly provided for the DEFENSE of the states. If the Navy wants to create a branch that flings dead pigs from carriers into PLO territories, or the army to do the same from planes, more power to them.
but then everyone on FR knows that, so it's NO surprise to anyone except perhaps the "newbies".
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
those 3 things were the MAJOR causes of the war. the BLOOD is INDELIBLY on the lincoln's hands.
free dixie,sw
13 southern states CHOSE FREELY to secede form "the union of the UNwilling" AND freely form a NEW country, with a democratically elected government of THEIR choosing.
how many MILLION PEOPLE will you WILLINGLY KILL to "preserve the union"??? (1 million? ten MILLION ?? 100 MILLION?? ALL of us??)
tell us all, Mr. President, how many INNOCENTS will YOU decide to NEEDLESSLY KILL???
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.